The 'screw it' principle

Entrenched positions, hit-and-run tactics, defined fields of fire are not imaginary lines. 

You could easily poke holes in my argument, as there are many flaws, yet you fail to find the proper line.

        Are we not forgetting the fact that the large majority of forces who landed in Normandy on D-day and fought their way through Europe to Germany were Americans?

As I'm sure you know, in the world of chess, it is often said we learn more from losing lines than winning ones.

This is true. However, the argument was that the English held off a superior force using an all or nothing attitude.

This is totally unrelated to what happened afterwards.

Woah! You do know that the fall of Saigon was hardly guerrilla war.

bigpoison wrote:

Entrenched positions, hit-and-run tactics, defined fields of fire are not imaginary lines. 

You could easily poke holes in my argument, as there are many flaws, yet you fail to find the proper line.

Wasn't Pickett a northerner ?....oh, never mind.

Yes.  By '75, the North Vietnamese army had an impressive array of artillery and armor.

Good move!

Seems like an all-or-nothing attitude would entail something like marching on Moscow. We all know that usually ends well.

It was never stated that the 'screw it' principle always wins. Just that it is a useful component if one wants to excel at chess.

I'm waiting for you to say, "screw this thread".

        Britain was not saved by the USA in WW2, once it had fought off the Luftwaffe. Any ambitions the Germans might have had of invading the UK were abandoned after the Battle of Britain - indeed, no coherent invasion plans were ever anything like finalised. Furthermore, there is evidence, which many would wish to airbrush out of history, that the Germans never had any wish to invade Britain and knew that the Royal Navy and the RAF would have made crossing the Channel successfully impossible.  

        The Luftwaffe attacks during the Battle of Britain were intended primarily to force Britain to talk peace. During this period, no less than three efforts were made by Germany to persuade Britain to talk. Churchill was not interested. American economic and military power were, however, essential to defeat the Germans in 1944/45.

Heck, even Nappy retreated.

No way. This is one of the best threads I've ever seen here.

Now all we need is Kaynight to come along and sidetrack the whole thing. Then I will know it is a thread truly worthy of Chess.com.

It ain't truly home if it ain't got batgirl and weinerkleiner.

        Russia was too large and shambolic in its communications infrastructure to be invaded sucessfully by "conventional" means. Slow progress by aggressors always foundered on the harsh Russian winter.

Invading wasn't Nappy's problem.  He managed that all right.  It was the getting out that he and his boys had so much trouble with.

"Shambolic"  Ha!  Thanks for that.  I learned a new word.

A painful misunderstanding of history here... I would have hoped chess players new better!

        But he didn't get all the way. He couldn't take Moscow.

The Russians quit Moscow but never really surrendered. And Nap was too cold, wet, and hungry to stay. He just went back home to eat his tasty snails.

He did.  He walked right into Moscow.  Alexander wasn't there to hand him the keys to the kingdom, though.  From all accounts, the little fella' was pretty sore about that.